Home

Iowa Press Transcripts

Iowa Press Links

Senator John Edwards

(#3117)
December 26, 2003

Click to listen to the streaming audio file. Listen to this program
(Requires RealPlayer)

IOWA PRESS #3117>>

Borg: A STUNNING CAPTURE IN IRAQ, AND THE NATION'S ECONOMY CONTINUES IMPROVING. HOW DOES THAT AFFECT DEMOCRATS' PLANS TO TAKE BACK THE WHITE HOUSE? WE'LL QUESTION PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NORTH CAROLINA SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS ON THIS EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS."

FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS PROVIDED BY "FRIENDS," THE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION FOUNDATION... GENERATIONS OF FAMILIES AND FRIENDS WHO FEEL PASSIONATE ABOUT THE PROGRAMS THEY WATCH ON IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION;

AND BY THE IOWA BANKERS ASSOCIATION... FOR PERSONAL, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS, IOWA BANKS HELP IOWANS REACH THEIR FINANCIAL GOALS.

ON STATEWIDE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION, THIS IS THE FRIDAY, DECEMBER 26 EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS." HERE IS DEAN BORG.

Borg: TWENTY-THREE DAYS NOW REMAIN UNTIL IOWA'S FIRST-IN-THE-NATION PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE CAUCUSES. MONDAY, JANUARY 19, OPENS THE OFFICIAL WINNOWING OF THE NINE CONTENDERS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION. NORTH CAROLINA SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS IS ONE OF THEM. SENATOR EDWARDS, WELCOME TO "IOWA PRESS."

Edwards: GLAD TO BE WITH YOU.

Borg: AND, OF COURSE, OUT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, YOU KNOW THE TWO GENTLEMEN ACROSS THE TABLE HERE.

Edwards: I KNOW THEM VERY WELL.

Borg: I'M SURE. "DES MOINES REGISTER" COLUMNIST DAVID YEPSEN; AND MIKE GLOVER, SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER FOR THE "ASSOCIATED PRESS."

Glover: SENATOR, WELCOME BACK TO IOWA AND WELCOME TO THE SHOW. I'D LIKE TO GIVE THIS, YOUR FIRST APPEARANCE ON THIS SHOW, A CHANCE TO MAKE THE CASE FOR YOURSELF. WHY JOHN EDWARDS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION IN THIS ELECTION CYCLE?

Edwards: BECAUSE I'M THE PERSON IN THE BEST POSITION TO BEAT GEORGE BUSH FOR A LOT OF REASONS. I COME FROM A DIFFERENT BACKGROUND THAN A LOT OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES, WORKING-CLASS ROOTS, PULLED MYSELF UP BY MY BOOTSTRAPS, GOT TO THE PLACE I AM THROUGH JUST HARD WORK AND DETERMINATION. I'M NOT A WASHINGTON INSIDER. I'VE SPENT MOST OF MY LIFE OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON, WHICH MOST PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR AND MOST PEOPLE THINK IS IMPORTANT. AND I WOULD ADD, I HAVEN'T SPENT MY WHOLE LIFE IN POLITICS. AND I THINK THAT'S A PARTICULARLY CRITICAL INGREDIENT WHEN WE SEE WHAT'S GOING ON IN WASHINGTON TODAY. AND I THINK THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR, SOMEBODY WHO'S TOUGH, SOMEBODY WHO'S A FIGHTER, SOMEBODY WHO'S PROVEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT THEY'RE UP TO THIS KIND OF FIGHT AND IS NOT MARRIED TO THE PROBLEMS THAT GO ON IN WASHINGTON D.C.

Glover: DEAN MENTIONED IN THE INTRO THE STUNNING CAPTURE. HAS THAT SHAKEN UP THE RACE AT ALL?

Edwards: I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT FOR THE SECURITY OF OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE OUGHT TO FOCUS ON. I THINK IT CERTAINLY CREATES A MORE SECURE ENVIRONMENT FOR THEM.

Yepsen: SENATOR EDWARDS, YOU VOTED TO AUTHORIZE THE WAR IN IRAQ, BUT THEN YOU DID NOT VOTE FOR THE $87 BILLION TO FIGHT IT. SENATOR, HOW CAN YOU VOTE FOR A WAR AND THEN NOT VOTE FOR THE BULLETS TO FIGHT IT?

Edwards: BECAUSE, DAVID -- AND YOU AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE -- I FELT VERY STRONGLY FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THAT IT WAS CRITICAL, IN ORDER FOR THIS MISSION TO BE SUCCESSFUL, FOR US TO HAVE A VERY CLEAR PLAN FOR THE POST WAR PERIOD AND, SECOND, FOR IT TO BE INTERNATIONALIZED, FOR AMERICA NOT TO BE DOING THIS ALONE. IT WAS CLEAR AT THE TIME OF THAT VOTE, THE VOTE ON THE 87 BILLION, THAT NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS WERE TRUE, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS PURSUING A COURSE OF UNILATERAL ACTION IN IRAQ. WE WERE THE AMERICAN FORCE OCCUPYING THE COUNTRY. IT WAS AN AMERICAN CONTROLLED OPERATION. AND I THOUGHT IT WAS CRITICAL FOR ME TO SAY TO THE PRESIDENT, THIS IS NOT WORKING, THIS POLICY IS NOT WORKING. AND THIS WAS -- YOU KNOW, THIS WAS THE ONE CHANCE I HAD TO STAND UP AND DO THAT. IF I HAD VOTED THE OTHER WAY, MY VIEW IS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE EQUIVALENT OF A LOT OF WORDS BUT WHEN THE CHANCE COUNT CAME FOR ME TO SAY THIS POLICY IS WRONG AND IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED, I DIDN'T STAND UP.

Yepsen: DID YOU MAKE A MISTAKE IN VOTING TO AUTHORIZE FORCE?

Edwards: I BELIEVED THEN AND STILL BELIEVE THAT SADDAM WAS A SERIOUS THREAT, AND I THINK HIS CAPTURE, WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT BRIEFLY JUST A MOMENT AGO, IS IMPORTANT, IMPORTANT FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE, IMPORTANT FOR THEM BEING ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD.

Yepsen: HOW DOES SADDAM HUSSEIN'S CAPTURE CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC RACE? DOES IT CHANGE IT AT ALL? SOME OF YOUR OTHER FELLOW CANDIDATES ARE REALLY ATTACKING HOWARD DEAN NOW FOR HIS POSITION. YOU HAVE NOT DONE THAT SO MUCH. HOW DO YOU FEEL SADDAM'S CAPTURE CHANGES THE DEMOCRATIC RACE, IF AT ALL?

Edwards: I THINK WHAT SADDAM'S CAPTURE -- I THINK THE IMPORTANCE OF SADDAM'S CAPTURE, DAVID, IS NOT POLITICAL. I THINK THE IMPORTANCE OF HIS CAPTURE IS FOR ALL OF THOSE YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN WHOSE LIVES ARE ON THE LINE ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ RIGHT NOW. I THINK IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN HOW THIS WILL PLAY OUT POLITICALLY WITH GEORGE BUSH AND AMONG THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES. BUT I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT AN ISSUE THAT YOU JUST TOUCHED ON VERY BRIEFLY, WHICH IS THE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN SOME OF THE CANDIDATES AND GOVERNOR DEAN. YOU KNOW, MY RACE IS NOT ABOUT GOVERNOR DEAN. IT NEVER HAS BEEN. MY CAMPAIGN IS NOT ABOUT HIM. I DON'T LOOK AT WHAT HE DOES ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS AND REACT TO IT. I MEAN I'M RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO TRY TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY, THE KIND OF OPPORTUNITY I'VE HAD, TO MILLIONS MORE AMERICANS THAN WHO HAVE IT TODAY UNDER GEORGE BUSH. HE'S MAKING IT HARDER FOR THOSE PEOPLE. I WANT TO MAKE IT MUCH EASIER FOR THEM. SO I THINK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ME AS A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE TO LAY OUT A POSITIVE OPTIMISTIC VISION FOR THIS COUNTRY, BE WILLING TO TAKE ON GEORGE BUSH IN THE TOUGHEST POSSIBLE WAY, BUT GIVE AN ALTERNATIVE -- A CLEAR ALTERNATIVE. SO I'M NOT INTO THIS DAY-TO-DAY SNIPING BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE CANDIDATES. WHAT I WANT TO DO IS CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON WHAT I WANT TO DO FOR AMERICA AND BEATING GEORGE BUSH.

Glover: LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT DAY-TO-DAY SNIPING BETWEEN SOME OF THE CANDIDATES. IS THAT DOING HARM TO THE DEMOCRATS' EVENTUAL CHANCE OF OUSTING GEORGE BUSH IN THE FALL?

Edwards: I THINK WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, MIKE, IS IT LOOKS POLITICAL. IT LOOKS -- WHEN YOU LOOK AT CANDIDATES, ONE SNIPING AT THE OTHER, THE OTHER SNIPING BACK BASED ON WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE LAST DAY OR TWO DAYS, IT LOOKS ENTIRELY POLITICAL AND POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. NOW, IF YOU WERE TO ASK ME DO YOU AGREE WITH JOHN KERRY ABOUT "X," DO YOU AGREE WITH DICK GEPHARDT ABOUT "Y," DO YOU AGREE WITH HOWARD DEAN ABOUT "Z," I'LL ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I'LL GIVE YOU A STRAIGHTFORWARD DIRECT ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION EVERY TIME. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT MY CAMPAIGN IS ABOUT. MY CAMPAIGN IS ABOUT SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT.

Yepsen: ONE POLITICAL QUESTION I WANT TO ASK YOU AT THIS POINT: EVERY POLL OF IOWA DEMOCRATS SHOWS YOU RUNNING IN ABOUT FOURTH PLACE IN SINGLE DIGITS. YOU'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME HERE. YOU'RE JUST GOING TO VISIT YOUR 99TH COUNTY THIS VISIT. WHAT'S HAPPENED? WHY HASN'T THE JOHN EDWARDS CAMPAIGN OR MESSAGE CAUGHT ON YET?

Edwards: WHAT'S HAPPENING IS IT IS CATCHING ON. IF YOU LOOK BACK HISTORICALLY AT PREVIOUS CAUCUSES, DICK GEPHARDT, FOR EXAMPLE, IN '87 AND '88, WHO WAS IN LAST PLACE OR CLOSE TO LAST PLACE, HAD THE EQUIVALENT OF THIS TIME. YOU LOOK AT THESE PAST CAUCUSES AND YOU SEE ENORMOUS MOVEMENT IN JANUARY. THE WAY THIS WORKS IS -- IT'S NOT COMPLICATED -- IS IOWA CAUCUS GOERS ARE VERY SOPHISTICATED. THEY'RE SMART PARTICIPANTS IN THIS PROCESS. THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR ROLE IS. THEY'RE THE FIRST PEOPLE TO DECIDE WHO THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO BE. SO THEY HAVE TO SEE YOU FIRST. THEY HAVE TO KNOW YOU. SECOND, THEY HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY LIKE YOU OR WHETHER THEY BELIEVE YOU'RE SOMEBODY THEY MIGHT SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT. THEN THEY HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO CAUCUS FOR YOU. WELL, I'VE BEEN IN THE FIRST TWO STAGES OF THAT. DICK GEPHARDT AND JOHN KERRY, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE VERY WELL KNOWN GOING INTO THIS RACE. HOWARD DEAN LITERALLY LIVED HERE FOR THE FIRST THREE OR FOUR MONTHS OF THE YEAR. I'M IN THE PROCESS NOW OF MAKING SURE PEOPLE KNOW ME AND WHAT I STAND FOR AND WHAT I'M GOING TO DO FOR THE COUNTRY. IN FACT, WE HAVE -- I'M ABOUT TO VISIT, THIS WEEKEND, MY 99TH COUNTY. AND I THINK GOVERNOR DEAN AND I ARE THE ONLY TWO PEOPLE THAT HAVE DONE THAT IN THIS RACE. SO I'M IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING SURE PEOPLE KNOW WHO I AM, AND THEY WILL DECIDE IN JANUARY TO CAUCUS FOR ME BECAUSE I COME FROM THE SAME KIND OF BACKGROUND THEY DO AND I CARE ABOUT THE SAME THINGS THEY CARE ABOUT.

Borg: SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, YOU DON'T INTEND TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT IN THESE FINAL DAYS BEFORE THE CAUCUS. YOU JUST THINK THAT THERE'S SOME UNDECIDEDS ARE GOING TO SWING YOUR WAY.

Edwards: I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO WHAT I'VE BEEN DOING BUT MORE INTENSELY THAN I'VE EVER DONE IT BEFORE.

Borg: LET'S GO TO AN ISSUE -- DAVID, DID YOU --

Yepsen: I JUST HAD ONE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.

Edwards: YES.

Yepsen: ONE THING I HEAR FROM IOWA DEMOCRATS WHEN I ASK THEM, WELL, WHAT'S WRONG WITH JOHN EDWARDS, WHY AREN'T YOU WITH JOHN EDWARDS, SOME PEOPLE SAY HE'S TOO YOUNG AND HE'S TOO INEXPERIENCED, HE'S ONLY BEEN IN THE SENATE ABOUT FIVE YEARS, WHEREAS, YOUR OPPONENTS HAVE ALL GOT MORE EXPERIENCE. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT?

Edwards: VERY SIMPLE. I'M FIFTY YEARS OLD. I'VE BEEN THROUGH A LOT IN MY LIFE. I COME FROM A PLACE WHERE MY GRANDMOTHER WAS A SHARE CROPPER. MY DAD WORKED IN A MILL ALL HIS LIFE. I DIDN'T GET TO THIS PLACE, DAVID, BY ACCIDENT. I GOT HERE WITH GRIT AND DETERMINATION AND HAVING A FIRE INSIDE ME THAT HAS DRIVEN ME EVERY SINGLE DAY. AND THE CLOSER AND CLOSER WE GET TO THESE CAUCUSES, THE MORE APPARENT THAT'S GOING TO BE TO THE CAUCUS GOERS.

Borg: THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU, AS I SAID IN THE OPEN, THE ECONOMY IS IMPROVING. THAT SEEMS TO BE TAKING AN ISSUE AWAY FROM THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES, BUT THERE CAN BE, I SUPPOSE, A PROPOSAL BY YOU -- AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY -- ABOUT SUSTAINING THAT ECONOMIC RECOVERY, MAKING IT EVEN STRONGER. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

Edwards: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T ACCEPT THE PREMISE. I DON'T THINK THAT IF YOU DO WHAT I'VE BEEN DOING AND YOU'RE OUT LISTENING TO VOTERS AND CAUCUS GOERS HERE IN THE STATE OF IOWA, THEY DON'T THINK THE ECONOMY IS FINE. THEY'RE DEEPLY WORRIED ABOUT THE ECONOMY. AND SPECIFICALLY, THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT JOBS. THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE LOSS OF JOBS, AND THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT HOW WE CAN CREATE JOBS. AND AS A RESULT, THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT I WOULD DO AS THEIR PRESIDENT TO PROTECT THE JOBS THAT WE HAVE, AND MY IDEAS ON THAT ARE NOT COMPLICATED. I THINK WE NEED SOME TEETH IN THESE TRADE AGREEMENTS TO KEEP MORE JOBS FROM LEAVING AND GOING OVERSEAS AND, SECOND, CLOSE TAX LOOPHOLES THAT GIVE AMERICAN COMPANIES AN INCENTIVE TO GO OVERSEAS AND GIVE TAX BREAKS TO COMPANIES THAT WILL KEEP JOBS HERE IN THIS COUNTRY.

Borg: IS THE STRENGTH OF THE AMERICAN DOLLAR, IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER NATION'S CURRENCIES, ALSO A FACTOR? THAT IS, IT HELPS US WITH EXPORTS, BUT IS IT A NEGATIVE FACTOR?

Edwards: IT IS A FACTOR, BUT I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, THE THING THAT WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IS CHINA'S MANIPULATION OF ITS CURRENCY. BECAUSE AS I SPEAK, IT'S NOT JUST TRADE AGREEMENTS, IT'S NOT JUST TAX PROVISIONS. RIGHT NOW CHINA IS IN THE PROCESS OF MANIPULATING THEIR OWN CURRENCY ABOUT 15 TO 20 PERCENT. THEY ALREADY HAVE AN ADVANTAGE AND WHEN THEY MANIPULATE THEIR CURRENCY AND THEY DUMP GOODS ON THE AMERICAN MARKET WHERE THEY HAVE UNDERVALUED THEIR OWN CURRENCY, THE EFFECT IS DEVASTATING ON AMERICAN WORKERS.

Borg: SO HOW WOULD YOU DEAL WITH CHINA AND NAFTA?

Edwards: THE WAY WE DEAL WITH THEM IS WE PUT ECONOMIC AND DIPLOMATIC PRESSURE ON THEM. WE HAVE HUGE ECONOMIC LEVERAGE WHEN IT COMES TO CHINA. IF NECESSARY, WE SHOULD BE WILLING TO TAKE A CASE TO THE WTO. AND IF THAT BECAME NECESSARY AND I WERE PRESIDENT, I WOULD ABSOLUTELY DO THAT.

Borg: THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION.

Edwards: YES.

GLover: ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE FOR A LOT OF DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES WHEN THEY START TALKING ABOUT THE ECONOMY, AN ISSUE WHICH TRADITIONALLY WORKS PRETTY WELL FOR DEMOCRATS, IS HOW DO YOU MAKE IT AN ISSUE AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF THIS GREAT NOISE WE'VE GOT GOING OUT THERE? HOW DO YOU GET THIS IN THE MINDS OF VOTERS, OR DO YOU THINK IT IS THERE?

Edwards: I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY IN THEIR MINDS. I CAN TELL YOU I DON'T NEED ANY -- I DON'T NEED ANY POLL OR ANY FOCUS GROUP TO TELL ME WHAT PEOPLE IN IOWA ARE WORRIED ABOUT. THEY ARE WORRIED -- THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THESE THINGS: THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT JOBS, NOT JUST THE ECONOMY. THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT JOBS. THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT HEALTH CARE, AND THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN IRAQ.

Yepsen: SENATOR, LET'S TALK ABOUT RURAL AMERICA SPECIFICALLY. YOU MENTIONED YOU WERE BORN IN A SMALL TOWN, ROBINS, SOUTH CAROLINA.

Edwards: NORTH CAROLINA.

Yepsen: NORTH CAROLINA.

Edwards: NORTH CAROLINA. I WAS BORN IN SENECA, SOUTH CAROLINA. THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE MAKING THE TRANSFER. I GREW UP IN NORTH CAROLINA.

Yepsen: YANKEES SOMETIMES MIX UP THOSE TWO STATES. I APOLOGIZE. >>

Edwards: SOMEHOW I DON'T THINK OF YOU AS A YANKEE. [ LAUGHTER ]

Yepsen: RURAL AMERICA. WHAT I'M GETTING AT, SENATOR, IS THIS IS RURAL AMERICA. YOU DO HAVE THAT BACKGROUND. YOU REPRESENT A RURAL STATE. WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT THE RURAL ECONOMY IN AMERICA?

Edwards: THE RURAL ECONOMY HAS BEEN DEVASTATED. AND I WAS THE FIRST ONE OF THESE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO ACTUALLY LAY OUT A VERY CLEAR RURAL AGENDA, AND IT INCLUDES IDEAS LIKE IDENTIFYING THE PLACES IN RURAL AMERICA WHERE WE NEED JOBS, CREATING VENTURE CAPITAL, SEED MONEY FOR NEW BUSINESSES THAT ARE WILLING TO LOCATE IN THOSE AREAS, PARTICULARLY BUSINESSES THAT ARE WILLING TO PROVIDE GOOD JOBS WITH GOOD BENEFITS, MAKING SURE WE PROVIDE TAX INCENTIVES TO AMERICAN COMPANIES THAT ARE WILLING TO LOCATE A PLANT OR A FACILITY IN ONE OF THOSE AREAS, ADDRESSING SOME OF THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS THAT EXIST IN RURAL AMERICA, SUCH AS BUILDING OUT HIGH-SPEED BROADBAND TECHNOLOGY TO EVERY RURAL COMMUNITY WITHIN THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF TECHNOLOGY TO BRING THE HIGHEST AND MOST SOPHISTICATED MEDICAL CARE THAT COULD BE AVAILABLE INTO RURAL COMMUNITIES. SO I'VE LAID OUT A WHOLE GROUP OF IDEAS. AND I THINK THE STARTING PLACE -- AND THIS IS WHAT YOUR QUESTION WAS ABOUT. THE STARTING PLACE IS HOW DO WE CREATE JOBS AND HOW DO WE BRING JOBS SPECIFICALLY TO RURAL AMERICA WHERE THEY'RE SO DESPERATELY NEEDED.

Yepsen: YOU ALSO HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE WITH THE HOG LOT ISSUE.

Edwards: YES, I DO.

Yepsen: IT'S RIPPED UP NORTH CAROLINA JUST LIKE IT'S RIPPING UP IOWA.

Edwards: YES.

Yepsen: IS THERE A FEDERAL ROLE IN DEALING WITH THE PROBLEMS OF LARGE HOG CONFINEMENT?

Edwards: SURE THERE IS. I MEAN ONE OF THE THINGS WE OUGHT TO BE DOING IS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DAMAGE THAT'S BEING DONE TO FOLKS WHO LIVE ADJACENT TO THESE CORPORATE HOG LOTS, WE NEED A NATIONAL POLICY ON THIS, NOT JUST AN IOWA POLICY, NOT JUST A NORTH CAROLINA POLICY. BOTH OF US HAVE HAD THE PROBLEM. BUT WE NEED A NATIONAL POLICY, AND THAT MEANS STRONGER SPECIFIC LAWS ON CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER. WE OUGHT TO BAN THE USE OF TAXPAYER MONEY FOR BUILDING OR EXPANDING THESE CORPORATE HOG LOTS. I THINK WE OUGHT TO HAVE A MORATORIUM ON THE BUILDING OF THESE CORPORATE HOG LOTS, AND WE ALSO NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT VERTICAL INTEGRATION BY HAVING A PACKER BAN IN PLACE SO THAT WE DON'T CONTINUE TO HAVE THE PEOPLE OF THESE BIG CORPORATIONS TAKING OVER SMALL FAMILY FARMS.

Glover: YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THE ISSUE OF TRADE AND NAFTA. FIRST, I'D LIKE TO GET YOU TO WHERE ARE YOU ON NAFTA -- THAT'S BEEN A VERY DIVISIVE ISSUE AMONG THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES -- AND WHERE YOU ARE ON TRADE IN A LARGER SENSE.

Edwards: MY VIEW IS -- LET ME DO IT IN THAT ORDER. NAFTA... NAFTA PASSED WHEN I WAS NOT IN THE SENATE. I CAMPAIGNED AGAINST NAFTA BECAUSE I SAW THE DEVASTATION IT CREATED IN MY STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, WHERE WE'VE LOST OVER A 100,000 TEXTILE JOBS IN PART BECAUSE OF NAFTA. MY VIEW OF THAT TRADE IS WE HAVE LEANED SO HARD INTO FREE TRADE THAT WE'VE LOST THE FAIR TRADE COMPONENT, WHICH MEANS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE KIND OF PROTECTIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT OR LABOR, PROHIBITIONS AGAINST CHILD LABOR AND FORCED LABOR, THE RIGHT TO JOIN A UNION, THE KIND OF PROVISIONS THAT SHOULD BE IN THESE TRADE AGREEMENTS, AND A SERIOUS ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN MISSING AND WE'RE SEEING THE RESULTS OF IT.

Glover: AND IT SEEMS LIKE TRADITIONALLY IN IOWA AND A LOT OF FARM STATES, IT WAS JUST A GIVEN THAT YOU WOULD SUPPORT FREE TRADE BECAUSE WE SELL A LOT OF FARM COMMODITIES OVERSEAS. THAT'S BECOME A MUCH MORE COMPLEX DEBATE, IT SEEMS. WHAT DO YOU SENSE WHEN YOU TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT THAT?

Edwards: EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED. PEOPLE ARE -- PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT MULTIPLE THINGS. THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT, FIRST, THEY SEE FACTORIES CLOSING, THEY SEE JOBS LEAVING, PARTICULARLY MANUFACTURING JOBS. THAT HAS BEEN, IN MANY WAYS, THE FOUNDATION FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS IN THIS COUNTRY, AND THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO TO REPLACE THOSE JOBS. THEY WORRY ABOUT, PARTICULARLY THE CAUCUS GOERS WHO ARE VERY MUCH INTO NOT ONLY WHAT'S HAPPENING IN IOWA BUT WHAT'S HAPPENING AROUND THE WORLD, THEY WORRY ABOUT THE LOWERING OF STANDARDS IN OTHER PLACES AROUND THE WORLD AS A RESULT OF US NOT HAVING THE KIND OF PROVISIONS WE NEED IN TRADE AGREEMENTS. BUT FARMERS STILL WANT ACCESS TO THOSE MARKETS, AND SO IT IS -- IT'S NOT A SIMPLE THING. BUT THE REALITY IS IF YOU LOOK AT OUR TRADE POLICY OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS, IT HAS BEEN BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S BEEN CONDUCTED, IT HAS BEEN DEVASTATING IN TERMS OF JOBS HERE IN THIS COUNTRY.

Glover: AND THE $64,000 QUESTION: IS IT AN ISSUE THAT MOVES THE CAUCUS GOER ON THE NIGHT OF JANUARY 19?

Edwards: YES, IT WILL BE. IT ABSOLUTELY WILL BE.

Yepsen: WHAT DO YOU DO? HOW DO YOU FIND THAT BALANCE, SENATOR, WITHOUT BEING A PROTECTIONIST OR WITHOUT BEING A GLOBALIST? WHERE'S THE BALANCE THERE?

Edwards: THE BALANCE IS TO HAVE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN THESE TRADE AGREEMENTS THAT PROVIDE FOR THESE KIND OF PROTECTIONS, INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS, AND MAKE SURE THERE'S A SERIOUS ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. IT'S JUST PRETTY MUCH THAT SIMPLE.

Yepsen: ANOTHER ISSUE THAT IS ON THE MINDS OF A LOT OF PEOPLE THESE DAYS IS THE ISSUE OF HEALTH CARE. CONGRESS JUST PASSED A MEDICARE BILL. WHERE ARE WE NOW IN THE COUNTRY ON HEALTH CARE? WHAT, IF ANYTHING, MORE DO YOU THINK WE NEED TO DO?

Edwards: WE HAVE A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN CRISIS, AND THE PRESIDENT MAKES NO PROPOSAL, NO SUGGESTIONS, NO IDEAS OF ANY KIND ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT. AND I THINK THERE ARE MULTIPLE ISSUES HERE. ONE IS WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT COVERAGE. WE HAVE 43 MILLION PLUS AMERICANS WITHOUT HEALTH CARE COVERAGE, 12 MILLION KIDS WITHOUT COVERAGE. THE COST OF HEALTH CARE IS GOING THROUGH THE ROOF. EVEN FOR THOSE WHO HAVE COVERAGE, IT'S BEEN DEVASTATING TO FAMILIES BECAUSE IT'S CRIPPLING. THEY CAN'T PAY FOR IT. SO MY VIEW IS WE SHOULD DO SEVERAL THINGS. AND DON'T LET ME FORGET TO TALK -- SAY A WORD ABOUT THE MEDICARE, PRESCRIPTION DRUG BILL, IN CASE YOU WEREN'T PLANNING TO ASK IT SPECIFICALLY, BECAUSE I DO WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S RELATED TO THIS ISSUE. THE FIRST THING WE OUGHT TO DO, IN MY JUDGMENT, IS WE OUGHT TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR EVERY YOUNG PERSON IN AMERICA UNDER THE AGE OF 21. IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED. WE SHOULD COVER OUR MOST VULNERABLE ADULT POPULATIONS, WHICH INCLUDE THE PARENTS OF THOSE SAME KIDS, PEOPLE BETWEEN JOBS, PEOPLE WHO WORK IN SMALL BUSINESSES, PEOPLE OVER THE AGE OF 55 WHO AREN'T ON MEDICARE YET. BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TO BRING DOWN HEALTH CARE COSTS FOR EVERYBODY BECAUSE THEY ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL. AND MY BELIEF IS THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH BRINGING HEALTH CARE COSTS DOWN TO STOP THE PRICE GOUGING, ALLOW REIMPORTATION FROM CANADA, PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, A WHOLE GROUP OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE, IS THE POWER OF THE LOBBIES FOR THE DRUG COMPANIES AND THE HMOs AND INSURANCE COMPANIES IN WASHINGTON. THEY HAVE A STRANGLEHOLD ON WASHINGTON. AND WE NEED DESPERATELY -- THE PEOPLE OF IOWA NEED A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHO WILL STAND UP TO THOSE PEOPLE, AND I'VE DONE IT MY WHOLE LIFE, BY THE WAY.

Yepsen: I'VE NEVER HAD A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ASK ME TO ASK HIM SOMETHING -- [ LAUGHTER ] -- SO LET ME ASK YOU WHAT ABOUT MEDICARE.

Edwards: WELL, THE MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BILL THAT JUST WENT THROUGH THE CONGRESS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT'S WRONG WITH WASHINGTON. WE NEED A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT UNDER MEDICARE, DESPERATELY NEED ONE. BUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS WE'VE GOT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND TAXPAYER FUNDED GIVEAWAYS TO HMOs, MONEY THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR A MUCH BETTER BENEFIT FOR SENIORS, ALL THE PROVISIONS THAT WOULD HAVE BROUGHT DOWN THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, BOTH UNDER MEDICARE, TAXPAYER FUNDED AND PRIVATELY, WERE TAKEN OUT. I MEAN THE THINGS LIKE USING THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO BUY PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AT A LOWER COST, BRINGING IN DRUGS, REIMPORTING FROM CANADA, DOING SOMETHING ABOUT DRUG COMPANY ADVERTISING, WHICH IS ONE OF MY PET THINGS THAT JUST DRIVES ME UP THE WALL, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF MONEY THAT WE END UP PAYING FOR. THERE ARE A WHOLE GROUP OF THINGS, GETTING GENERICS INTO THE MARKET, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN IN THAT BILL. THE DRUG COMPANIES WERE AGAINST EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM GOT TAKEN OUT. IT WAS IRRESPONSIBLE.

Glover: SENATOR, YOU'RE A PRETTY FAIR COUNTRY POLITICIAN IN ADDITION TO BEING A UNITED STATES SENATOR AND CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT, BUT HASN'T THE PRESIDENT PULLED OFF SOMEWHAT OF A POLITICAL COUP HERE? HE CAN NOW SAY, "PEOPLE WANT A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT. I GAVE IT TO THEM." THE THING IS SO COMPLEX, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS. ALL THEY KNOW IS IT'S A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT.

Edwards: I THINK, MIKE, THAT'S THEIR STRATEGY. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION ABOUT THAT. I THINK THEIR VIEW IS THAT HE'LL BE ABLE TO SAY, IN SIMPLE TERMS, "I GAVE YOU A PRESCRIPTION DRUG DEAL," BUT IT'S NOT FULLY IN PLACE UNTIL 2006, WHICH I KNOW YOU KNOW, SO IT COMES A COUPLE YEARS AFTER THE ELECTION. NOW, OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO MAKE SURE THAT VOTERS UNDERSTAND HOW DEVASTATING THIS BILL IS GOING TO BE FOR THEM.

Glover: ANOTHER BEDROCK DEMOCRATIC ISSUE IS EDUCATION. YOU HAVE PROPOSED SOME GRANTS TO HELP MORE PEOPLE GET THROUGH COLLEGE. EXPLAIN THAT TO US.

Edwards: IT'S CALLED COLLEGE FOR EVERYONE, AND IT'S ADDRESSING THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE QUALIFIED TO BE IN COLLEGE AND SHOULD BE THERE BUT AREN'T GOING BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PAY FOR IT. AND I THINK -- THIS IS A PERSONAL THING FOR ME. I WAS THE FIRST PERSON IN MY FAMILY TO GO TO COLLEGE. I WORKED MY WAY THROUGH COLLEGE, AND I KNOW HOW BIG IT WAS IN MY OWN FAMILY THAT I WAS ABLE TO DO THAT. SO THAT'S WHERE THIS IDEA CAME FROM. THE IDEA IS THIS. IF YOU'RE A YOUNG PERSON AND YOU'RE QUALIFIED TO BE IN COLLEGE AND YOU'RE WILLING TO WORK AT LEAST TEN HOURS A WEEK THE FIRST YEAR YOU'RE THERE, YOU'RE ABLE TO GO TUITION-FREE TO A STATE UNIVERSITY OR A COMMUNITY COLLEGE. AND I BELIEVE THAT NOT ONLY WILL IT GIVE ACCESS TO COLLEGE TO A LOT OF YOUNG PEOPLE WHO OTHERWISE WOULDN'T GET IT, BUT THE WORK WON'T HURT THEM. IT'S ACTUALLY A VERY GOOD THING FOR THEM.

Borg: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PICKS UP WHAT?

Edwards: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR IT. THERE IS NO WAY -- STATE UNIVERSITIES AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES CAN'T PAY FOR THIS. THEIR BUDGETS ARE ALREADY IN CRISIS. IT IS A NET COST OF ABOUT $3 BILLION A YEAR, AND THE WAY I PAY FOR IT IS CHANGING THE WAY WE PROVIDE STUDENT LOANS IN THE STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM. INSTEAD OF PAYING A LOT OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PROFITS TO BANKS, THE LOANS WILL BE MADE DIRECTLY, PLUS SOME OF THE CHANGES IN THE BUSH TAX CUTS.

Glover: BUT IT'S NOT JUST AN ISSUE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE. IT'S AN ISSUE OF THE SKILL LEVEL OF THE WORK FORCE. HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH TRADITIONAL WORKERS WHO MAY BE IN THE WORK FORCE WHO MAY NEED SKILLS UPGRADED TO MEET NEW JOBS?

Edwards: THE SAME ISSUE. IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME ISSUE. FIRST OF ALL, THIS IDEA APPLIES TO ANYBODY. I TALK ABOUT YOUNG PEOPLE BUT IT APPLIES TO ANYBODY, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR AGE IS. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WORRY ABOUT -- AND I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THIS UP. ONE OF THE THINGS I'M WORRIED ABOUT IS FOR AMERICA TO CONTINUE TO BE COMPETITIVE ECONOMICALLY. WE ARE BEGINNING TO LOSE OUR EDGE IN AREAS LIKE TECHNOLOGY AND MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE. YOU KNOW, BACK WHEN I WAS GROWING UP, IT WAS THE SPACE PROGRAM THAT WAS THE INSPIRATION FOR ALL OF US. YOUNG PEOPLE WANTED TO BE INVOLVED IN THESE AREAS. WELL, THAT INTEREST HAS GONE DOWN, GONE DOWN DRAMATICALLY, AND IT SHOWS. FOR EXAMPLE, LAST YEAR CHINA GRADUATED ABOUT 500,000 ENGINEERS, WHILE WE GRADUATED ABOUT 60,000 ENGINEERS. THIS IS DEVASTATING. THIS IS DANGEROUS FOR THE AMERICAN ECONOMY OVER THE LONG TERM BECAUSE IF WE DON'T MAKE -- PRODUCTIVITY IS THE KEY TO AMERICA CONTINUING TO HAVE AN EDGE ECONOMICALLY AROUND THE WORLD. AND IF WE LOSE THAT SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGICAL EDGE, THEN WE'VE LOST A BIG PART OF WHAT GOT US TO WHERE WE ARE. AND THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT. WE CAN, FIRST OF ALL, WE CAN PUT MORE ENERGY AND FOCUS ON GETTING YOUNG PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THESE AREAS FROM THE TIME THEY'RE VERY YOUNG AND, SECOND, WE CAN PROVIDE MORE FUNDING FOR POST GRADUATE EDUCATION.

Yepsen: SENATOR, ANOTHER ISSUE ON THE MINDS OF A LOT OF DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS GOERS IS A QUESTION SURROUNDING ENERGY POLICY AND THE ENVIRONMENT. WHAT WOULD PRESIDENT JOHN EDWARDS DO ABOUT ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT?

Edwards: WE HAVE TO MAKE A TURN IN THE ROAD, AND WE NEED PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE. WE'VE GOT TO MOVE AMERICA TOWARD ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO BE AS DEPENDENT ON OIL FROM THE MIDDLE EAST AS WE ARE TODAY. AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR A LOT OF REASONS. IT'S AN OBVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE. BUT IT'S ALSO AN ECONOMIC AND A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE. WE CAN'T HAVE OUR POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST CONTINUE TO BE DRIVEN BY OUR NEED FOR OIL FROM THE MIDDLE EAST. YOU LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE PRICE OF A BARREL OF OIL GOES UP ON THE STOCK MARKET. I MEAN THESE PEOPLE HAVE A STRANGLEHOLD ON THE AMERICAN ECONOMY. WE CAN'T LET THAT CONTINUE. SO HERE'S WHAT I WANT TO DO. FIRST, I WOULD MANDATE THAT WE HAVE MORE FUEL EFFICIENT VEHICLES. WE DESPERATELY NEED MORE FUEL EFFICIENT VEHICLES. THE SECOND THING IS AN INVESTMENT IN PROMOTION AND USE OF CLEANER ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY. HERE IN IOWA, OBVIOUSLY, ETHANOL IS ONE OF THOSE. BUT IT'S ALSO WIND AND SOLAR AND BIOMASS. AND I WILL SAY THIS, I'VE TRAVELED ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. IOWA IS ACTUALLY AN EXTRAORDINARY LEADER IN THIS AREA, IN ALL OF THOSE CLEANER ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY. BUT WE DESPERATELY NEED A PRESIDENT -- SEE, I BELIEVE AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, IF WE'D HAD A PRESIDENT WITH VISION, THAT PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE GONE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND SAID, "NOW IS THE TIME. I WANT TO TAP INTO THIS GREAT SURGE OF PATRIOTISM THAT YOU FEEL AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE. WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR US, FOR OUR CHILDREN AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN."

Yepsen: SENATOR, WE'VE ONLY GOT A COUPLE MINUTES LEFT, BUT I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE WAR ON TERRORISM. YOU'RE A MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. IS THE UNITED STATES SAFER TODAY THAN WE WERE ON 9/11?

Edwards: YES, WE'RE SAFER. WE'RE NOT AS SAFE AS WE NEED TO BE.

Yepsen: WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?

Edwards: THERE ARE A WHOLE GROUP OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE, DAVID. WE SHOULD, FIRST OF ALL, BE MUCH MORE TARGETED IN PROTECTING OUR MOST VULNERABLE TARGETS HERE IN THIS COUNTRY, NUCLEAR PLANTS, CHEMICAL PLANTS. WE HAVE OVER A HUNDRED CHEMICAL PLANTS, ANY ONE OF WHICH, IF WHERE THEY WERE ATTACKED COULD COST A MILLION LIVES OR MORE. OUR PORTS ARE NOT BEING ADEQUATELY PROTECTED. WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF THESE BIG CONTAINERS COMING IN EVERY SINGLE DAY. THEY'RE NOT BEING -- WE LOOK AT 3 OR 4 PERCENT OF THEM, SO IT WOULD BE VERY EASY FOR A TERRORIST GROUP TO GET SOMETHING VERY DANGEROUS INTO THIS COUNTRY. WE DON'T HAVE THE INVOLVEMENT OF COMMUNITIES IN MAKING SURE THAT WE GET WARNINGS OUT AND WE HAVE A RESPONSE TO THOSE WARNINGS IF AN ATTACK WERE TO OCCUR. AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE -- DO A MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE JOB OF INFILTRATING THE TERRORIST CELLS THAT WE ALL KNOW EXIST HERE IN THIS COUNTRY.

Glover: THERE IS A CONTROVERSY OVER HOW MANY TROOPS OUGHT TO BE IN IRAQ. ARE THERE TOO FEW? TOO MANY? ABOUT THE RIGHT NUMBER?

Edwards: I THINK THAT MY VIEW IS THAT WE MAY -- THERE MAY NEED TO BE ADDITIONAL TROOPS IN IRAQ FOR SECURITY PURPOSES, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN ADDITIONAL AMERICAN TROOPS. WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING IN IRAQ IS WE SHOULD BE GETTING THE AMERICAN FACE OFF THIS OCCUPATION. AND THE MOST IMPORTANT WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT IS FOR US TO BRING NATO AND OTHER SECURITY FORCES -- FOR EXAMPLE, NATO COULD PROVIDE THE SECURITY ALONG THE SAUDI ARABIAN AND --

Glover: IT'S TIME TO DO YOUR COMMERCIAL, SENATOR. YOU'VE GOT ABOUT THIRTY SECONDS LEFT. USE IT TO TELL THE AVERAGE IOWA CAUCUS GOER WHY YOU SHOULD BE THEIR PICK.

Edwards: BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT THEIR LIVES ARE LIKE. I FOUGHT FOR THEM ALL MY LIFE, AND I WILL FIGHT FOR THEM AND STAND UP FOR THEM AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Borg: THANK YOU, SENATOR EDWARDS. THANKS FOR BEING OUR GUEST TODAY.

Edwards: THANK YOU.

Borg: ON OUR NEXT EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS," WE DISCUSS THE POLITICAL LAY OF THE LAND WITH TWO IOWA PARTY OPERATIVES. JOINING US: REPUBLICAN STEVE ROBERTS... HE'S A FORMER STATE PARTY CHAIR; AND DEMOCRAT ROB TULLY, FORMER CHAIR OF THE IOWA DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THEY'LL BE DISCUSSING PRECAUCUS CAMPAIGNS IN THE SHORT TERM AND THE ELECTION OF 2004 IN THE LONG TERM. THAT'S AT OUR REGULAR "IOWA PRESS" TIMES NEXT WEEK: FRIDAY AT 7:30, SUNDAY AT NOON. AND TWO PROGRAM REMINDERS... ON SUNDAY, JANUARY 4, THE CONTENDERS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION ARE SCHEDULED FOR A MAJOR DEBATE. IT'S THE "DES MOINES REGISTER'S" DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE'S DEBATE, WHICH COMES SEVENTEEN DAYS BEFORE IOWA'S FIRST-IN-THE-NATION PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE CAUCUS. THAT DEBATE AIRS LIVE AT 2:00 ON SUNDAY, JANUARY 4, AND WILL BE REBROADCAST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING AT 4:00. AND THEN A DAY LATER, WE BEGIN A TWO-WEEK PRECAUCUS SERIES FEATURING DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULS AND POLITICAL NEWSMAKERS. IT'S "THE CANDIDATES WITH DAVID YEPSEN," AIRING MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AT 6:30 FROM MONDAY, JANUARY 5, ALL THE WAY THROUGH FRIDAY, JANUARY 9, AND THEN THE FOLLOWING WEEK TOO, MONDAY, JANUARY 12, THROUGH FRIDAY, JANUARY 16. I HOPE THAT YOU'LL NOTE THOSE DATES AND TIMES AS IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION BRINGS YOU THE FIRST MAJOR EVENTS OF ELECTION YEAR 2004. I'M DEAN BORG. THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY. FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS PROVIDED BY "FRIENDS," THE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION FOUNDATION... GENERATIONS OF FAMILIES AND FRIENDS WHO FEEL PASSIONATE ABOUT THE PROGRAMS THEY WATCH ON IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION; AND BY THE IOWA BANKERS ASSOCIATION... FOR PERSONAL, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS, IOWA BANKS HELP IOWANS REACH THEIR FINANCIAL GOALS.